The Great Debate

I have learned in recent days that, when engaged in debate, there are three types of people. I had previously (and maybe slightly ignorantly) thought that there were only 2 types. I see that I may need to elaborate some so here goes.

Type one: The first type of person engaged in debate is the most ostentatious of the three. This is the person that refuses to actually engage in debate. He just throws out his opinions with no actual fact to base it on and when you point out your reasoning he resorts to name calling. For example, say we were engaged in a healthy debate regarding the legalization of marijuana. The person I am engaged in the debate with is pro and I am con (I am actually for the legalization of marijuana, but that is a topic for another day). I say that marijuana should not be legalized because it is a gateway drug and will lead to heavier drug use. Instead of saying "There are plenty of people who smoke marijuana their entire lives and never do another drug" the Type One person will say something like "No way you stupid idiot, Do you even know what you are saying?" See my point there? No facts to support his point of view just name calling and insults. This is also the same person that will bring race, sexual orientation, gender, religious preference, and such into an argument when there is absolutely no reason to bring in any of that. As another example, using the same scenario, but putting me in the pro position and Type One in the con position. My argument; "The amount of people in prisons would decrease because the majority of people in prison for drugs are in for marijuana." Type One: "No you racist idiot. Not only black people smoke marijuana." Notice how while I said absolutely nothing about race, Type One not only brought race into the mix and implied that I was racist, he made a racist comment himself and tried to justify it by saying that I had said something I hadn't. Type One happens to be the person that I ignore the most as you can clearly see why.

Type Two: The second type of person is the one that states well thought out facts and honestly, full-heartedly supports his position. You can not really fault him because it is very admirable to stick by one's beliefs no matter what. However, Type Two is not without his faults. This is the person that states the same facts over and over and when you point out something that is wrong with one of his facts or you de-bunk one of his facts, he spouts an ignorant basis for the fact. For example, in this scenario, we use the great Kurt Cobain murder/suicide debate. I will take the murder side and Type Two takes the suicide side. Me:"The amounts of drugs found in his system suggest that it would be impossible for him to have shot himself. He would have been too stoned to do so." Type Two: "Actually, because he was a drug addict he built up a tolerance so this had no bearing on whether he could shoot himself or not." Me:" Well that is not entirely true. Kurt Cobain had been drug free for almost a year according to those closest to him, so if he had taken the drugs willingly, the fact that he had been clean for so long would have incapacitated him." Type Two: "Drugs don't work like that. Once you have built up a tolerance, you always have that tolerance." You see that? Type Two started of strong by stating supporting facts, however when it was pointed out that he was mistaken, he came back with an ignorant statement. Type Two will also tend to contradict himself very often.

Type Three: And last but not least is my favorite person engaged in debate, but he is also the rarest. Type Three is the person who can actually engage in the debate state facts and if you both still disagree then he will agree to disagree with you. This person will be the person that while he sees where you are coming from, he will stand by his beliefs. This person will not use ignorant useless information or resort to name calling. Nor will he bring in information that is not relevant to the debate (i.e. gender, race, etc.)Type Three is the holy grail of debate opposition.

Until recently, I had thought that Type Three was a mere myth, because I had never encountered a Type Three. I was on a forum platform that was discussing illegal immigration (which is also a topic for another day) where I encountered an intelligent seemingly educated young man from Argentina. So you can imagine how difficult a debate in english could be for someone who does not speak it as a first language. Kudos to Type Three. I am glad he is not just myth anymore just maybe endangered!